Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The implication of your post Marty is that for [medical] read [essential] while for [religious] read [hobby] .... Or pastime, or some other optional activity that when push comes to shove simply isn't that vital.
That's how you choose to order your life - fine. However that's not how a religious person sees it. If they take their faith seriously, then it doesn't sit on a shelf until [insert holy day here] and then have no implications beyond the hour you spend listening to the rabbi, vicar or imam or whoever.
To the religious, God is real, as in objectively real, not just a nice idea or "real to me", and that means his commandments are important. You will never seek to persuade a religious person by saying, "well, this is important because it's medical, but that's just religion".
|
Martyh is simply countering the argument (which has been pre-empted a million times in this thread) that if you object to the foreskin being removed without someone's consent, then you should also object to an appendix being removed, which is bolleaux, as there are compelling medical reasons for removing an appendix, and not for removing a foreskin.
I suppose you could then argue that religious reasons can be just as compelling, and ultimately the parents have the right to decide what happens to their children. At that point I would point out that it gets a bit hairy when parents deny their children medical intervention, or when people's religion decides what medical intervention can be legally carried out to save the life of a woman who's about to die in child-birth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741